On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
william(at)elan.net [william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net] wrote:
Its pretty standard practice that re-voting should not be allowed.
But only because most elections are anonymous, so a re-voter's prior votes
cannot be discarded.
Its pretty standard practice when votes are not anonymous as well.
So while if its an accident its not a big deal and we should ignore
multiple copies its also possible for somebody to change his mind after
talking to others (especailly bad if it happens in-mass) and possibility
of this and other manipulation schemes should be minimized.
How can you consider talking to others and changing your mind a
"manipulation scheme"?? This is normal democratic practice and has
nothing to do with manipulating elections.
Its manipulation during the voting process or when someobody already
voted that is abusive. Obviously prior its all ok.
If you allow only one vote and invalidate _all_ of my votes as soon as I
cast another vote, an attacker can try to invalidate my vote by casting a
forged vote before or after I submit my real vote. The attacker's chances
of submitting before or after me are 100%.
Most people will go to web and then immediatly send confirmation. After
that person might disrupt it by sending additional confirmations
It makes no difference whatsoever. The point is that we plan to prevent
forged votes in the first place, and assuming we succeed in doing that,
all alternatives are equivalent, except that with the third option voters
have the change to change their mind before the election is over. I
consider that a good thing.
Not really. Its responsibility of the person voting to think about it
and consider everything before actually doing it.
Its like with standard process - you consider all technical details and
you try to be carefull in every way and then you actually act on it and
make it a standard. Once done going back and changing important part is
very difficult and causes serious problems.
Russian proverb for this situation is translated as "measure many times,
but only cut once".
---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net